Police Officer Not Obligated To Register FIR On Information About Offence "Likely To Take Place": Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has said it is not necessary to register FIR whenever a police officer receives information over the phone or in some other way about an offence which is likely to take place. It clarified that the mandate under Section 154 for registration of FIR comes into picture when cognizable offence "has been committed".Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar said, "It is not necessary to register FIR whenever a police officer receives information over the phone or in some other way about an offence which is likely to take place. Rather it is the duty of the police officer to take immediate measures to prevent the crime from happening, or if committed in his presence, to take action according to section 41 of Cr.P.C, FIR may be registered later on." Case Background: Petitioner Iqbal Ahmed had approached the court challenging the conviction handed down to him under sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC, and section 12(1)(b) of the Passports Act. He was apprehended on the basis of information received by the Police that some persons were involved in creation of forged and fabricated passports for the purpose of human trafficking and that they would be approaching the employees of the IBM Company, Manyata Tech Park, Bengaluru. The inspector formed a team and went to the place, apprehended the suspects and recovered some implicatory items. During the investigation, one of them gave a voluntary statement disclosing the involvement of Iqbal Ahmed. The petitioner was thus arrested when a personal search of the petitioner was conducted. He had with him a passport he also gave a voluntary statement which led to recovery of another passport. The order of conviction passed by CBI Court was confirmed by the Sessions Court, against which the petitioner instituted present proceedings. Court findings: Senior Advocate Hashmath Pasha referred to the judgement in the case of Lalita Kumari vs Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others [(2014) 2 SCC 1] and submitted that the investigation was vitiated since PW 1 (police officer) received definite information about a crime being committed when he was in police station, but did not register an FIR before going to the spot. The argument came to be rejected by the court stating that,"The clear ratio laid down is that whenever information discloses commission of a cognizable offence, registration of FIR is mandatory. The sentence in section 154(1) Cr.P.C commences thus, "Every information relating to commission of a cognizable offence...That means, by the time information is given to a police officer, an offence should have been committed. It is in this context that Lalita Kumari obligates a police officer to register FIR first before taking up the investigation. Registration of FIR is a mandatory requirement to rule out possibility of embellishments, improvements and exaggeration of events in course of time." It held, "PW1 did not receive any information that an offence had already been committed before he proceeded to take action based on the informant's message. Mere securing of panchas before going to spot does not lead to an inference that information was definite." Mere marking a portion in the confession statement leading to discovery is not sufficient Pasha also submitted that unless recovery based on disclosure is legally proved, inculpatory inferences against an accused cannot be drawn. He submitted that when an independent witness to seizure panchnama for recovery of Ex.P5 turned hostile, evidence of PW1 alone was not sufficient. He also argued that PW1 did not speak the very same words that are marked as Ex.P4, a portion of confession statement. Advocate P Prasanna Kumar for the prosecution opposed the submission and said though PW8 turned hostile, he gave a clear admission in the cross-examination that he had deposed falsely to help the accused, and this admission would establish that he was very much present when Ex.P5 was seized. The bench said, "There is no rule as such that testimony of the investigating officer should not be believed without corroboration from independent witnesses. It is not necessary that an investigating officer should repeat the portion of a confessional statement leading to discovery of a fact which is within the knowledge of the accused. If the testimony of the investigating officer is trustworthy, it can be acted upon, and this principle is well settled." Offence under Passport Act Committed: Pasha argued that there is no evidence to show that the petitioner used the passport Ex.P5, that there is no evidence that he forged the passport and that probability in defence evidence is not considered at all. Kumar countered it by saying that Ex.P5 (forged passport) contains immigration seals of various countries, and these seals indicate that the petitioner visited many countries using Ex.P5. If he did not use it, he alone should have given an...

Police Officer Not Obligated To Register FIR On Information About Offence "Likely To Take Place": Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

Tags